Everywhere and Nowhere

A look at the nonduality of Vedanta and Radical Behaviorism: Different paths to the same selfless destination

“Place this salt in water and bring it here tomorrow morning."

The boy did.

"Where is that salt?" his father asked.

"I do not see it."

"Sip here. How does it taste?"

"Salty, father."

"And here? And there?"

"I taste salt everywhere."

"It is everywhere, though we see it not. Just so, dear one, the Self is everywhere, within all things, although we see it not. There is nothing that does not come from it. It is the truth; it is the Self supreme. You are that, Shvetaketu. You Are That.”

~ Eknath Easwaran, The Upanishads

Photo by Alexey Demidov on Unsplash

Like the salt that dissolves in water, self is nowhere and everywhere at once.

Notice how I didn’t say your self or the self? That was intentional, as there is no such entity belonging to anyone.

Let’s inspect this teaching more broadly, from a Vedānta-curious, Radical Behaviorist lens. For today, in this one sitting, let’s skim the salty surface of the concept of nonduality, or the idea that there is no separate self in the water, apart from everything else — a concept that Vedānta and Radical Behaviorism agree upon.

From a Western perspective, the metaphor of salt dissolving in water might be read as if it implies a mystical essence — some invisible “thing” inside us that pervades all life. Without further interpretation, it sounds dualistic: body here, self hidden within. As if there is a kind of “essence” that is separate from our body but also inside all of us and everything else.

In Vedānta, the metaphor is meant to inch listeners towards nondualism (advaita): the idea that Atman (Ātman, आत्मन्, the self) and Brahman (ब्रह्मन्, ultimate reality) are not two.

But, again, to a Western reader familiar with ideas like souls, a God above, or the holy trinity, the language of Atman uniting with Brahman may still sound dualistic — as though there is something hidden inside us, operating both the individual and the cosmos.

But there is nuance to the concept of uniting Atman and Brahman. (Here is an attempt to illustrate how so, through select quotes, which cannot possibly represent the whole of a worldview or discipline, of course.)

Ādi Śaṅkara, the 8th-century philosopher of Advaita, put it these ways, in the Vivekachudamani, one of the most beloved texts of Vedanta teachings, the whole of which is meant to direct the practitioner towards nondual awareness, or moksha:

“That which is free from all distinctions; which is ever-existent; which is calm like a waveless ocean; and eternally unconditioned and undivided—That Brahman Thou Art…meditate on this in your mind.” (verse 260)

“Renounce your identification with family, lineage, name, form and order in life—attributes which pertain to the body which is like a foul corpse. So too, renounce your ideas of agency etc., which are attributes of the subtle body. Thus realize your true essence as the Absolute Bliss.” (verse 298)

“That person alone, who identifies with the body, is greedy of sense-pleasures. How can one devoid of the body-idea be greedy? Hence, the tendency to ruminate over sense-objects is verily the cause of bondage of worldly existence and the sense of duality.” (verse 312)

Brahman (and thus Atman) is not a hidden substance or set of mystical particles inside you. Attributing self to the body and worldly attachments (or giving it “it” status) is dualism. These teachings and the whole of the Vivekachudamani — and many others — are meant to dismantle the very idea of an essence and attachments to what is me or I. What remains is inseparability.

That is, one interpretation of the nondualism of Vedanta (not based on these quotes alone, of course) is that the teachings are not suggesting we are made of mystical particles or substrate that governs the cosmos, separate from the cosmos. Rather, the concept of “I” is a construct, and we are the cosmos. Inseparable.

---

Radical behaviorism offers a different but resonant way of dissolving the illusion of self — and coming to inseparability of “I” from “everything else.”

Instead of positing an inner essence, Radical Behaviorism treats “self” as a way of speaking about behavior in context. What you do, say, think, and feel — those patterns are what people call “I.”

And, though what we do, say, think, and feel, is influenced by body-related variables, it is also always traceable to the external world — inseparable, in fact. So, in this way, we can see that what we think of as “I” is indeed inseparable from “everything else.”

Further, Radical Behaviorism looks to the real world. In this real world, there is no evidence of a homunculus behind your eyes, steering the ship. Nothing to suggest there is a static “thing” of self (or mind) hidden inside the body. The only evidence we have of a “self” are the words we use to label the products of a body behaving (perceiving, moving, speaking, remembering, etc.), always in relation to its environment. Words and concepts like “I” and “me” — and personality and identity — are more behavior, used to represent other behavior! They are useful, as constructs for coordination and continuity across our lifetimes (And for referring to our physical body), but not static entities themselves.

From this perspective, self (or mind) is not something you have, but something you’re part of — continually shaped and reshaped, like salt dissolving in water. You can’t extract it whole; it’s everywhere and nowhere.

That’s why I avoided saying your self or the self. Self isn’t a possession or an entity. It is a dynamic process, a name for patterns of behaving across time, together with everything else.

And here, Vedanta and Radical Behaviorism converge: both traditions undermine the illusion of a separate self. Both remind us that what seems most solid — the “me,” the “I” — is not what it appears to be.

Self is salt water. You taste it everywhere, but never find it whole.

---

Thanks for reading. Hope you enjoyed this one. It was my first attempt to relate two paths to nondualism (Vedanta and RB) around the concept of “I” or self, without taking your whole day. Sometimes, I wish I could put everything I’ve learned into words at one time. To drop our current “self” in the ocean of “us,” for all other selves to know — can you imagine?! I feel I’d be free — nothing to live for but the “me of us.” But then I realize this wish came from duality, and the I of me dissolves again.

Peace, love, and stimulus control,

Jennifer

Photo by Kazden Cattapan on Unsplash